You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/22/2004 06:22:47 AM · #1

Anyone with only a passing concern for the environment and future generations should read this. That includes Mr G Dubya Bush...

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/22/2004 08:26:16 AM · #2

This article about the Earth's magnetic field weakening is also very interesting. A diminishing magnetic field (data indicates it started to weaken about 2000 years ago) has been an indicator in the past that the magnetic poles may flip in the next thousand years or so, something that hasn't happened in 780,000 years. Although I won't be around to experience it, one cool aspect of this is that during the transition (which would be very gradual), auroras would be visible every night around the globe.

Also, there was a very interesting program on PBS's Nova called Magnetic Storm that went into a lot more detail about the effects of the weakening magnetic field.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/22/2004 08:37:57 AM · #3

adapt or perish

Stop Blaming All Your Problems On Bush

global warming as you call it has been around since the stone age, it ain't bush's fault and you contribute in some way, so stop pointing fingers. look at coutries like china that pollute like crazy and don't think twice about it

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 08:42:39.

e301

01/22/2004 08:54:40 AM · #4

GWB happens to be in charge of the world's biggest economy at the moment. I don't think John's point should necessarily be construed as an attack (which is also not to say it isn't). We should all be concerned about this, regardless of who else does what. China is no reason not to reform all the world's emissions and use of fossil fuels. Otherwise they have exactly the same argument (i.e. 'look at the USA').

Which is quite apart from the fact that GWB is very very short-sighted, in my opinion, politically and economically, and a BAD THING.

Ed

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

01/22/2004 09:09:59 AM · #5

It looks like an attack on "Dubya" to me. I think this is still a photography site. Show a picture of it or stfu.

basia03

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS

01/22/2004 09:13:06 AM · #6

thankfully, al gore created internet, so we can have our political discussions there...

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/22/2004 09:16:27 AM · #7

Originally posted by Niten:

It looks like an attack on "Dubya" to me. I think this is still a photography site. Show a picture of it or stfu.

Or how about posting the political commentary in Rant so those of us who vote don't actually have to see it...

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 09:16:43.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/22/2004 09:17:55 AM · #8

Originally posted by Imagineer:

That includes Mr G Dubya Bush...

BTW it's president Bush if you would like this voter to take you seriously...

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 09:18:27.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

01/22/2004 09:26:40 AM · #9

Originally posted by e301:

Being the leader of the worlds greatest economy, he is only going to do the things that help keep that economy strong. ie. going into a country, ousting its leader, not for the sake of peace or the people of the country but to secure the rich oil reserves of that country. There is little in environmental stewardship for GWB.

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/22/2004 09:31:32 AM · #10

Where do you guys get this crap? Last I recall was sending money. Where is the line to get some of that free oil?

Maybe send me a photo of it?

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/22/2004 10:16:32 AM · #11

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by e301:
GWB happens to be in charge of the world's biggest economy at the moment. I don't think John's point should necessarily be construed as an attack (which is also not to say it isn't). We should all be concerned about this, regardless of who else does what. China is no reason not to reform all the world's emissions and use of fossil fuels. Otherwise they have exactly the same argument (i.e. 'look at the USA').

Which is quite apart from the fact that GWB is very very short-sighted, in my opinion, politically and economically, and a BAD THING.

Ed

Being the leader of the worlds greatest economy, he is only going to do the things that help keep that economy strong. ie. going into a country, ousting its leader, not for the sake of peace or the people of the country but to secure the rich oil reserves of that country. There is little in environmental stewardship for GWB.

if this were true why haven't we been able to explore the alaskan wildlife refuges and explore the possibility of tapping into russia's vast untapped oil reserves? there are plenty of other places to get oil if that were the reason. that point is old hat and really doesn't have much merit

mbardeen

Canon PowerShot G3

01/22/2004 10:44:12 AM · #12

It seems that many arguments don't have much merit when they're against what people believe.

As researcher studying ecological systems, these issues are very close to my own heart. Bush started out his presidency by flatly denying that global warming was happening - this claim was even disputed by his own scientists. While it is true that the ultimate effects of human habitation on this planet are not always clear, something that is clear is that we do have an affect on it. The debate is more about how and how much we are affecting it - is climate change our own doing or is it a natural process undergone by the planet?

The problem is that we're intertwined in this environment, so we cannot simply step back and study it objectively as scientists. We must make predictions and assumptions and hope that they are correct. From my study of ecological systems, the signs of impending ecological collapse is not always clear, but the consequences are clear - an ecological collapse is often catastrophic and irreversible.

With this in mind, the question of setting correct environmental policy is a hard one. Do we err on the side of caution and cease all development and return to living as hunter and gathers to minimize our impact on the environment? Or do we ignore the problem completely and be surprised when the temperature of the earth changes dramatically and the planet ends up as a ball of ice or with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead? Neither of these options seem viable to me, so we must have some mix. Personally I would perfer to err on the side of caution. Where do you stand?

soup

Canon EOS-30D

01/22/2004 10:52:46 AM · #13

we are at this exact moment in time tearing apart alaskas wildnerness in preperations to tap into the oil there. also from what i know the
oil avaiable from those reserves is only enough to run the US for about 1 year. yet we are willing to destroy thousands of years of wilderness growth for a coffee can full of gasoline. laws regarding manufacturing pollution have been lightened, in order to increase productivity and decrease costs ( at what cost though in the long run ).

many of the US's manufactures are moving to China for cheap labor, lack of envirmental restrictions, and money laundering/ tax evasion....

the effects of humans on the enviroment will expand exponentially like the advances in technology, until we start using technology more to preserve than tap into. becuase the GOV is run by Big Business, and Big Business wants to make a buck. the easiest fastest, cheapest, most profitable solution will be the rule with little to no regard for the raminfications of those decisions. these guys wnat a fast buck, and to get the hell out of dodge while their pockets are full.

ugh,,,,

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 10:53:59.

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

01/22/2004 11:10:25 AM · #14

As Site Council Member: I appreciate this topic... and also appreciate the level of conversation it holds, but, if you don't mind.. I'm gonna put this in the rant forum.

As Earth Member: There have been signs for years of the Earth's delapitation. Some care.. but not enough think about it every day, and most feel helpless against the tide.

Knowing what we know, and with scientists and environmentalists urging us to wake up constantly, what is it we can do - globally - to make things better? We aren't going to stop the population. Is there something we can do besides take pictures of it and complain and become afraid?

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 11:14:52.

01/22/2004 11:47:51 AM · #15

Originally posted by achiral:

global warming as you call it has been around since the stone age, it ain't bush's fault and you contribute in some way, so stop pointing fingers. look at coutries like china that pollute like crazy and don't think twice about it

e301 put it very well. Does America not stand for a nation of free thought and progress? So why look to China to defend the indefensible stance of Bush's environmental policy (or lack of it)?

Many nations (some European one's excluded however) have reduced emissions and implemented new strategies to halt the negative effects on the world. I certainly view America as an unusually privileged nation with a wealth of land and resource, and hope that its leaders would demonstrate a global style of government given its physical occupation of the globe and lion's share of world trade.

Being advanced in the Western world it will take less developed nations and regions longer to catch up - but that's no excuse to release the pressure to improve a global philosophy - if not for you then for future generations.
---

And Niten, apologies for the upset - but your 'Boss' does piss the world off somewhat! ;)

Seriously though, 'lead by example' is how many are judged in business at least, so how do you really think his reputation goes down? Nobody's perfect, but when you override the world's scientific community, the earth's own signs of fatigue and international treaties, you really have to expect some criticism.

I hate political posts in the forums but I don't see this as directly political.

We all take pictures on a weekly basis of beautiful landscapes, machines, vehicles, urban decay, people and animals - so why not reflect on the potential impact or demise of some of those things?

A narrow mind leads to a narrow path.
---

There have been some interesting points of view here - I'm encouraged to hear them.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/22/2004 01:43:48 PM · #16

From TODAY's edition of the LA Times

Excerpted from a Commentary: Cold Facts on Global Warming

"Much of the warming in the 20th century happened from 1900 to 1940. That warming was followed by atmospheric cooling from 1940 to around 1975. During that period, frost damaged crops in the Midwest during summer months, and glaciers in Europe advanced. This happened despite the rise in greenhouse gases. These facts, too, are not in dispute.

And that's just our recent past. Taking a longer view of climate history deepens our perspective. For example, during what's known as the Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, the Earth's temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than they are today. That period was succeeded by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the early 19th century. Neither of these climate periods had anything to do with man-made greenhouse gases.

The lessons of our recent history and of this longer history are clear: It is not possible to know now how much of the warming over the last 100 or so years was caused by human activities and how much was because of natural forces. "

Still, many would like to blame President Bush's environmental policies.

FYI, the if you want to read the entire commentary (registration required, free), here's the link
//www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schlesinger22jan22,1,4967313.story

Ron

GoldBerry

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/22/2004 02:21:39 PM · #17

Originally posted by achiral:

I was just going to say the same thing. Also, Canada sneaks under the radar only because we have NO WHERE NEAR THE POPULATION DENSITY, so I'm tired of Canadians griping about the rest of the world because we do indeed live the exact same way..there's just not as many of us. "the finger of blame has turned apon itself". And if Americans volunteered to car pool, walk, etc then there'd be no need for new laws and regulations. We only make changes when we're forced to, that's our own wrong doing - no one elses.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2004 05:05:21 PM · #18

my basic reaction to the thread originally is "why does it seem like someone is actually claiming george bush is responsible for fixing a global problem that one country alone cannot fix?" how do we stack up to other countries in terms of money spent, regulations, laws, etc? i'm curious. my first inclination would be that we already do a ton.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/22/2004 05:05:25 PM · #19

Some interesting comparative statistics from independent.co.uk (Great Britain).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2004 05:10:17 PM · #20

Originally posted by achiral:

Because he claims to be the leader of a corporate culture which seems bent on exploiting all available future resources in a quest for short-term profits. I've never quite figured out what "conservatives" are trying to conserve except their entrenched wealth, power and a commitment to a lifestyle which would make Caligula blush in its brazen hypocrisy and boldness of action.

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 17:10:40.

01/22/2004 05:18:44 PM · #21

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Comparative statistics.

Hmmm. Any questions?

Message edited by author 2004-01-22 17:20:20.

cshep

Nikon Coolpix 5700

01/22/2004 06:16:43 PM · #22

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Well put!

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

01/22/2004 06:47:17 PM · #23

Iâ��m more worried about a Comet or Asteroid hitting Earth and making all these petty complaints irrelevant. Man there is a shooting gallery out there. And we are the target!